£10 charge to visit A&E?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Is it a trick question?

 

Nope just seeking some clarification..don't be so paranoid ;)

[For Us All]

Nope just seeking some clarification..don't be so paranoid ;)

 

Ok then,basically,like most people,I am opposed to anyone from any religion who supports or funds terrorist organisations.

Will that do?:);)

[JOHNNYAITCH]

What if the terrorist organisation has legitimate aims but uses terrorism to achieve them?

[For Us All]

What if the terrorist organisation has legitimate aims but uses terrorism to achieve them?

 

Now that's where you'd have to do your homework?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Now that's where you'd have to do your homework?

 

Soooo..not necessarily "opposed to anyone from any religion who supports or funds terrorist organisations." Depends on what the terrorist organisations aims are?

 

Enuff already

 

;)

[For Us All]

Don't know what's been said on here but I think if you are intoxicated then you should have to pay for your full treatment unless you have been attacked,but there would have to be proof obviously.regardless as to whether you pay taxes.but to charge for normal things is ridiculous IMO.

 

Over 1.2m people treated in hospital for alcohol related injuries or concerns between 2007 and 2012 at a cost of approx.£1 billion a year.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11041373/Binge-drinkers-should-be-fined-for-going-to-hospital-Tory-campaigner-suggests.html

[JOHNNYAITCH]

"the number of hospital admissions for alcohol related injuries or concerns rose from 863,566 to 1,220,293."

 

Does that include grannies who had a few sherries at home, slipped and broke a hip?it's too crude a figure to draw any conclusions from

 

"We need to urgently crack down on bingers who repeatedly hog our A&Es and take up police time because they can’t handle their drink."

 

I do believe that repeat offenders being admitted to A&E should face a financial charge; three strikes and you start paying. It gets complicated cos someone for example could get a kicking whilst drunk when them being drunk is not a contributory factor but the police would generally be involved in that so it can be managed. It's as much a deterrent to geting drunk as it is to recoup the costs.

 

Plus having an alternative to taking someone to A&E just cos they are plastered..so called drunk tanks. And charge them when they are discharged from the drunk tank every time.

 

Get so plastered that you can't look after yourself and after the event you pay to be looked after.

 

Get in a state repeatedly that you need A&E treatment and after a couple of chances you have to pay.

[TWIGGY]

So before you were treated for your injuries you should have to show proof you were attacked? What like mobile phone footage? Get the attacker to sign a note for you? Absolutely absurd idea youth

No my friend that would be silly.IMO you should be billed after for obvious reasons.also to prove this there could be a conviction or at least a report of violence made by the victim.there is also a lot of CCTV around nowadays.as stated in another post, this kind of treatment costs millions per year.

[melv]

So only if they are actively involved in a senior capacity in the planning and execution of Islamic terrorist activity?

 

As opposed to a supporter but not actively involved for example?

 

If they are involved then they will be connected.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

If they are involved then they will be connected.

 

What do you mean by involved? What do you mean by connected?

 

For example if they are a close relative of someone actively involved are they involved or connected or both or neither? If conencted who is making the conenction? Surely they are conencted by pure chance..they are related to someone actively involved.

 

IF they agree with what an Islamic terrorist group is doing but don't participate in any way in what they do are they involved or connected or both or neither?

 

I am still unclear what you mean by involved and/or connected

[kevin_struggles]

What if the terrorist organisation has legitimate aims but uses terrorism to achieve them?

 

 

Every terrorist organisation believes that they have legitimate aims so there is no way of objectively seperating them by the validity or not of those aims.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Every terrorist organisation believes that they have legitimate aims so there is no way of objectively seperating them by the validity or not of those aims.

 

What if an organisation has legitimate aims in the eyes of everyone but those they are fighting against but uses terrorist tactics to achieve them?

[kevin_struggles]

What if an organisation has legitimate aims in the eyes of everyone but those they are fighting against but uses terrorist tactics to achieve them?

 

I used to get into conversations like this with my sons when they were young, I will retire gracefully before I get caught up in it :D

[JOHNNYAITCH]

To put it in conext....the statement was made (I think by Melv or For US All but I can't be sure as I've lost several million brain cells since then, indeed new species have evolved since then :) ) that he/she could never support a terrorist organisation or anyone who indulged in terrorist activities

 

My point was and is that sometimes organisations witrh legitimate aims (aims that all but their enemy agree with) have to resort to terrorist tactists so what then?

[For Us All]

This is quite alarming?

 

http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/500-surgeries-close-year-doctors-warn/story-23032701-detail/story.html